Ramaphosa responded to Zuma’s summons in wrong way – expert

As President Cyril Ramaphosa and his predecessor Jacob Zuma square off in an urgent application brought by the president in the High Court in Johannesburg today, legal analysts have divided opinions on who will win the first round.

Ramaphosa is applying for an interdict preventing him from “physically” appearing in court for private prosecution in a criminal case brought by Zuma.

Zuma is accusing Ramaphosa of being an accessory after the fact in a private prosecution, where he accuses prosecutor Billy Downer of leaking his medical records to News24 journalist Karyn Maughan.

Ramaphosa would have to physically appear in court on 19 January if the court dismisses his urgent application today.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa’s application ‘fruitless’ and intended to serve ‘selfish and egotistic’ purpose – Zuma

Ramaphosa might taste defeat

An attorney, Mpumelelo Zikalala, said Ramaphosa might taste defeat if the court was of the opinion the matter was not urgent.

“I think he might not win on Part A (the urgent application) of his application, as whenever you bring a matter on an urgent basis, you have to show the court you have a legitimate right you want to protect. You have to show you will suffer irreparable harm if the interim order is not granted,” Zikalala said.

Depending on how one looks at this case, the president did not explain irreparable harm in his first papers.

“He is just talking about how it would be bad for such a big office (the presidency) to go to court,” Zikalala said.

He said the president should rather have attacked the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

ALSO READ: Zuma has ‘deliberately misconceived’ grounds on which case is made, says Ramaphosa in affidavit

“Zuma’s argument will say he is acting on a certificate he received from the NPA and not anybody else, so on what basis have I done wrong?

“The president should say the NPA gave an ambiguous statement because you cannot give a certificate that does not have the name of the suspects.”

He said the reason behind Ramaphosa’s urgent application was to try and dodge stepping inside the dock.

“He doesn’t want to appear in court and be warned to appear. He could have asked for a security deposit from Zuma and be extravagant and say R1 million would be how much it costs for him to go to court rather than fighting the way he is fighting it,” he said.

Overreach

On Zuma’s main case, Zikalala said the president was correct in his argument that he had no right to intervene in the matter.

“He is correct because he is not the custodian of disciplining prosecutors who misbehave. It is the national director of public prosecutions who does that,” Zikalala said.

“If the process of the case continues until it’s concluded, he would win that one. It is just that his win in the case expected to start on the 19th will be delayed.”

Head of the criminal department at Ulrich Roux and Associates JP Venter said Ramaphosa could not just ignore the summons even though, in his opinion, it was defective.

“To issue a summons for a nolle prosequi you have to open a criminal case against the person specifically. Even though his lawyers and the state attorney have advised it is a defective summons, he cannot just ignore it. In my opinion, I think the president will win,” Venter said.

ALSO READ: ‘Urgency of matter is self-created’ – Zuma files answering affidavit opposing Ramaphosa’s application

The accusations made by Zuma, which said Ramaphosa was an accessory after the fact, was just an overreach.

“Saying Ramaphosa is an accessory after the fact because he did not take steps to do something about the people who leaked the [medical reports], that is reaching a bit,” he said.

Roux believed Zuma had little chance of succeeding in the criminal trial.

“I can’t see what Ramaphosa did being an accessory after the fact but I will never say never because it is up to the person sitting on top and you sometimes get weird decisions.

“I do not think he has a strong case,” he said.